Gauhati High Court: In an application seeking quashing of the impugned order whereby the Sessions Court denied maintenance to the petitioner-wife for the child, the Single Judge Bench of Parthivjyoti Saikia, J., allowed the application, holding that the wife was driven out of the matrimonial house due to the child’s complexion not matching the parents and thus, the wife had shown sufficient reason for living separately.
Background
The petitioner-wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking maintenance from her husband, the respondent. The Trial Court granted her maintenance of Rs. 2,500 for the petitioner and another amount of Rs. 500 for her child. Aggrieved, the husband filed a revision petition wherein the Sessions Court refused to grant maintenance to the wife for the child.
The Sessions Court stated that the wife’s evidence was self-contradictory and inconsistent with the pleadings, rendering her testimony unreliable. The Court noted that she was unable to show sufficient cause for living separately. The Court stated that despite this, the Trial Court proceeded on the presumption that no woman would leave her matrimonial home without any reason and therefore, if a woman has left her matrimonial home, something must exist on the part of the husband or his family members. The Sessions Court rejected this reasoning, stating that this was not a presumption permitted by law.
“If that be the permission of the law, then in all such cases for maintenance, evidence would be wholly unnecessary and would become an eyewash, and that will make the bald statements of all petitioners believable by the Court.”
Hence, the present petition.
Analysis
Upon perusal of the evidence, the Court noted that the reason for the dispute was that the couple was dark-complexioned, but the child was fair-complexioned. Due to this, the husband began physically harassing the wife and drove her out of the matrimonial house along with the child.
Noting this, the Court opined that the wife had shown sufficient reason to live separately from her husband and held that the Trial Court passed a reasoned judgment, which did not require any interference by a superior court.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, holding that the inherent power of the Court deserved to be exercised for the ends of justice.
[Mustt. Lozzatan Begum v. Shahidul Islam, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 2898, decided on 04-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: A K Hussain, A Haque, B Hussain, and S Hazarika
For the respondent: S Alom, M S Alam, and A Begum
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
